Linsen International Ltd & Ors v Humpuss Sea Transport PTE Ltd & Anor

Linsen International Ltd & Ors v Humpuss Sea Transport PTE Ltd & Anor

The claimants were not obliged to disclose the fact or content of the without prejudice meeting as part of their duty of full and frank disclosure; there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by the defendants, justifying the continuation of the freezing order; the amount specified in the order should be reduced...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Linsen International Limited; Claimant: Nelson Cove Shipholding S.A.; Claimant: Elspeth Shipping Corporation; Claimant: Romford Services S.A.; Defendant: Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd; Defendant: P.T. Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration/freezing Order Application / Post Interim Freezing Order; Application to Set Aside or Vary Order
Outcome
Worldwide freezing order continued with modifications
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Full and Frank Disclosure, Without Prejudice Communications, Risk of Dissipation, Breach of Undertaking, Disclosure of Assets
Commercial Law Arbitration Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Full and Frank Disclosure Without Prejudice Communications Risk of Dissipation Breach of Undertaking +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linsen International Limited

Claimant

Nelson Cove Shipholding S.A.

Claimant

Elspeth Shipping Corporation

Claimant

Romford Services S.A.

Claimant

Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd

Defendant

P.T. Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration/freezing Order Application / Post Interim Freezing Order; Application to Set Aside or Vary Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants failed in their duty of full and frank disclosure by not revealing without prejudice negotiations prior to obtaining a freezing order
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying the continuation of the worldwide freezing order
  3. 3 Whether the amount specified in the freezing order should be reduced

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants were not obliged to disclose the fact or content of the without prejudice meeting as part of their duty of full and frank disclosure; there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by the defendants, justifying the continuation of the freezing order; the amount specified in the order should be reduced to $75,000,000; the claimants did not breach their undertaking by seeking discovery in the US; and the defendants must provide further disclosure of their assets as specified.

Court Disposition

Worldwide freezing order continued with modifications

Orders

  • Freezing order continued against both defendants in the reduced sum of $75,000,000
  • Defendants to provide further disclosure of assets as specified, including audited and unaudited unconsolidated financial statements of HS and HIT, and details of asset transfers and receivables